Just recently, on her fraud blog at Big Hackulism, she played up the "Liberals hate Sarah Palin" Card here:

Jim Geraghty started a brouhaha yesterday by criticizing how the makers of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received $1.2 million in tax credits by filming in the state — and that Palin signed the 2008 law which made it possible. Because she’s now apparently omnipotent, able to see into the future and plan for it by signing into law a complex program with numerous in-house checks and balances. Geraghty questioned Palin’s conservative credentials.

As I said, the argument here should be about lower taxes across the board, as opposed to the actions some states must take in order to remain competitive. It’s also illogical to try and discredit Alaska’s program by comparing it with that of other states because variables differ in each state.

I love debate and disagreement when it occurs on the right because a competition of ideas ultimately makes the right stronger and frankly, more invincible. However, if you’re going to take a stand on an issue and place a target on a fellow conservative who takes more than enough heat from the left, it’s wise to make sure that you fully understand the issue and articulate it correctly.

Yesterday, I detailed how Loesch's attempt to smear Planned Parenthood failed miserably. Today, she's still defending the post while demonstrating absolutely no comprehension of the word "access." In fact, her defense is so sad that she has had to threaten to block conservatives who have a basic understanding of reality and are calmly refuting her points.

This claim is false, as was noted yesterday: Cecile Richards clearly said that Planned Parenthood offers access to mammograms, not that they provide mammograms, on the clip that Loesch is referring to. So even conservative @SarahWW had to ask Loesch why the folks at Big Journalism can't make honest arguments for their positions rather than relying on dishonesty:

Note to Big Journalism: Fact-checking is much easier if you have basic linguistic competence.So her quote was that the provide access to mammograms, and they do provide access to mammograms, and Big Journalism's idiotic response is "but access to mammograms isn't the same a giving mammograms so she's lying." Truly astounding.

She also made a fool of herself on CNN.

@JGibsonDem I wonder how much Military Experience Dana Loesch has, since she seems to think she knows better, then the President. none I bet.

Yesterday AOL/Huffington Post spokesman said Andrew Breitbart’s characterization of admitted Marxist and 9-11 truther Van Jones as a “commie punk” was too egregious a statement for them to continue an association with Breitbart.

Last anyone’s checked, Barr still remains as a contributor to the AOL/Huffington Post. I’m certain that after we point this out to them they will just as swiftly issue a statement detailing their disassociation with Barr as commitment to their consistency of not featuring writers who engage in “ad hominem attacks.”

Their false accusations have been thoroughly debunked, thus it seems individuals like Van Jones and Color of Change simply have a vendetta against Breitbart — and now shame due to their failed, prejudice-fueled maneuver to silence him. Huffington Post refused to acquiesce.*UPDATE: The Huffington Post caved to Marxist bullying.

So Breitbart is no longer allowed to publish on the front page of HuffPo because he made an ad hominem attack? By this logic, the same standard will be applied to all AOL/HuffPo writers going forward. If Breitbart is being thrown under the bus for making ad hominem remarks off the site, then that means… no other AOL/HuffPo bloggers can make them either.

We’ve never seen the Huffington Post make an effort like this to suppress the speech of any of their other (mostly left-wing) personalities. The hypocrisy is laughably obvious, and it was left-of-center bloggers Mickey Kaus of the Daily Caller, Alex Pareene of Salon, and Dave Weigel of Slate who were quickest to point it out. Pareene sums it up this way:

UPDATE: Dana Loesch just posted that "Dissent is Unpatriotic" in regards to Obama. Dissent IS patriotic, no matter who's in office. I bet you she would think that ANY dissent against Bush or Palin would be unpatriotic, when any dissent of a Democrat was patriotic. Hypocrite?!

Will dissent become patriotic again if Obama loses reelection in 2012?

He was right -- it was amazing. In the course of the video, Beck and CNN's Dana Loesch expressed a baffling sympathy for anarchism. Loesch said, "I'm two steps above anarchy conservatism, just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. I mean, really, that's really what we're supposed to be." In response, Beck said, "[W]hen you say we're two steps -- you're two steps above an anarchist -- and I think I am, too. I mean, I'm really closer to Washington than any president, even Reagan. They really were organized, controlled anarchists."

Beck's selection of guests primed the conversation to include fringe views:

Dana Loesch The mistake CNN made in hiring Loesch as a contributor did nothing to repair her fundamental credibility problem -- she remains the editor-in-chief of Big Journalism, one of the websites created by notorious smear merchant Andrew Breitbart. It regularly promotes outlandish theories.

Damon Vickers Vickers has popped up on Beck's show from time to time to talk about the same things he talks about when he appears on the radio show of fringe conspiracist Alex Jones -- one-world government and economic collapse.

Steve Emerson Though often cited as a terrorism expert by the right-wing media, Emerson frequently makes baseless, sensational claims about Islam and terrorism. For instance, on the Insider Extreme anniversary special, Emerson claimed that Palestinian militants are in Mexico learning "how to dig tunnels that will evade detection in Gaza."

Brad Thor Thor makes his money as a novelist and moonlights writing for Breitbart's discredited websites. Almost a year ago, Thor's "exclusive" on Big Government about Pakistan having captured Taliban leader Mullah Omar crumbled. On Beck's CNN Headline News show in 2007, Thor said of Iraq, "We need a dictator back in that country. That's all those people respond to. The Arab world is so messed up, they can't -- you can't give people democracy."

Photo: Glennbeck.com

From the March 16 Insider Extreme anniversary webcast on GlennBeck.com:

Transcript/video of Beck and Loesch's conversation:

LOESCH: I think that the Tea Party movement has sort of broken the spell that Republicans can do no wrong. Which was a huge goal of mine when I was first started out, because I'm two steps above anarchy conservatism, just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. I mean, really, that's really what we're supposed to be.

And I -- from what I've seen and from what I've heard from people, they no longer believe that simply because you have an "R" by your name, that guarantees you're a conservative, it guarantees that you're pro-life, it guarantees that, you know, you stand for the principles upon which this country was founded. And I think that's really -- and that's one of the reasons we've seen a lot of Republicans push back against the movement.

BECK: So, where do we go -- where have we gone wrong? Because when you say we're two steps -- you're two steps above an anarchist -- and I think I am, too. I mean, I'm really closer to Washington than any president, even Reagan. They really were organized, controlled anarchists.

LOESCH: Mm-hmm.

BECK: I mean, they thought -- really, it is the closest to anarchy. Just -- the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and they -- and so they just pushed it out just a little bit farther. And they were like, "No, no, no, 'cause it'll cause a big government." But they pushed it out just a little farther to give it that stability.

But how is it that, in a generation that understands anarchy and revolution -- I mean, look at what YouTube is going to do to television. Look what YouTube has done to the music industry. You don't have to have a big record promoter.

LOESCH: Nope. Not anymore.

BECK: You make one, it gets hits -- you're a hit.

LOESCH: Right.

BECK: So, how is it that this young generation understands structured anarchy that is directly -- you are the source of power. But yet we can't seem to knit it together with that guy: George Washington. Because that's what he believed in.

From the March 16 Insider Extreme anniversary webcast on GlennBeck.com

My response to Loesches comments of "the Constitution does not say public employee unions could have collective bargaining" (I'm starting to feel I am repeating myself w/ all this constitution obeying crap): if you're (Loesch) all about following the constitution word for word, then you obviously wouldn't mind quiting your job, finding a husband, getting pregnant, never voting in local, state, or national elections again, letting go of your personal ambitions & devoting yourself fully to the raising & educating of your, & your neighbors, childrens. THAT IS, if you want to follow the Constitution word for word.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been pushing a “revelation” that she discovered $105 billion in mandatory spending included in the health reform law. However, the spending she is referring to was openly discussed in congressional hearings and by the congressional budget office on multiple occasions. On Dana Loesch’s Tuesday broadcast of her radio show, Bachmann gave an interview discussing the issue. Responding to Bachmann’s manufactured controversy, Loesch compared negotiating with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other health reform advocates to negotiating with “terrorists.” Bachmann didn’t skip a beat, and continued on with the conversation:

BACHMANN: Kathleen Sebelius has a sixteen billion-dollar slush fund to do with as she will. [...] It’s another reason we have to repeal Obamacare, and another reason we have to defund it. But they decided they were smarter than all of us, and they surreptitiously or deceitfully hid that $105 billion dollars and I say give the money back.

DANA LOESCH: Absolutely. Well I hope that you are successful in negotiating. I feel like we’re negotiating, and I’m just going to say this, I feel like we’re negotiating, sort of, with, it seems like terrorists to do this to our economy, especially right now. Quite honestly it does. That you would be able to–

BACHMANN: And also we’re having a meeting today about an hour and a half from now at 5:30 eastern time with members of Congress because a lot of members didn’t even realize this or didn’t even know about this. And so we’re talking to members and we’re also talking about this concept of demanding that they give the money back before we go any further in these budget negotiations. We’ve acted in good faith, and Obama hasn’t. [...] You’re awesome Dana, thank you.

Of course, her guest, Teahadist looncase Michele Bachmann (R-MN06) supports Loesch's vile rant. And typical of Dana The Devil, her loonytunes antics will get worse as time goes on.

Still, let's all keeping pretending that Kinder hasn't actually decided on a campaign, even though he's stated openly in Missouri and in Washington, DC that he's running. Because if we stop writing about whether or not he's running, we might have to write about all the things he's actually doing and saying. And that's not going to be very pleasant for Peter, now is it?

-----------------------

It's also nice that Kinder made himself available to the dishonest and pathetic Loesch exactly one business day after she railed against Speaker Steve Tilley's associations with the New Black Panther Party.

Also, one year ago yesterday, The Dana Show moved into its current timeslot, 2-4PM CST Monday-Friday, moving The Sean Hannity Show to 7-9PM. Since her move to that slot, she has ampedup the crazy--big-time.